Best possible Kriegsmarine for 1940

Some ... question arising out of checking on the several naval-treaties as listed here by @Shadow Master .

How or as what were the french large destroyers (Guépard-class, Aigle-class, Vauquelin-class, le Fantasque-class) classified according to the LNT of 1930 ?
They were clearly above the 1.880 metric tons weight-limit (~2400 - ~2600 t) as well as above the 5.1" calibre-limit sporting their 5,5 (or 5,46 :winkytongue:)" guns.
These requirements were ... "eased" in 1936 but until then all the ships named above were built.

Technically they should have been declared "cruisers class b.". ... Were they ? Does anybody has some knowledge of ?

That is actually a pretty good catch!
They do indeed seem to be over the limit, I wonder how that happened? Were they built later on, or between 1930-1936?

EDIT:
Guepard built 1927-1931
Aigle built not known when laid down, but some launched before the 1LNT went into effect on Oct 27th, 1930.
Vauquelin completed in 1933-1934
Le Fantasque all seem to have been launched in 1933-1934.

I have to say I hate the French fleet wiki pages, the information is not in the same format, nor even all there, compared to other navies of the times.
############################################################################################

I have yet to restart my "Guns of Jutland" database, where I will make charts/tables for all the Dreadnought class battleships built, sorted by the nation that built them. When my HDD on my Win XP computer crashed, I lost all the work I had done. I had not finished all the ships for the UK/US/KM/MN/RM, let alone all the others, but it still was a bit loss.

Have you done many checkups on ship classes?
The cruiser/destroyer provisions of the London Naval Treaty explicitly applied only to the US, Japan, and Great Britain. To quote the opening of Part III of the treaty:

The President of the United States of America, His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, have agreed as between themselves to the provisions of this Part III:
 

NoMommsen

Donor
The cruiser/destroyer provisions of the London Naval Treaty explicitly applied only to the US, Japan, and Great Britain. To quote the opening of Part III of the treaty:
... having read the treaty-texts for some more times : you seem to be right.

But ... then ...

it also seems as if France and Italy were under the terms of the LNT of 1930 "free" to build in whatever numbers and of whatever displacement as they wished ... as long as they stayed under calibre 8" and under 10.000 ts standard displacement ?
 
... having read the treaty-texts for some more times : you seem to be right.

But ... then ...

it also seems as if France and Italy were under the terms of the LNT of 1930 "free" to build in whatever numbers and of whatever displacement as they wished ... as long as they stayed under calibre 8" and under 10.000 ts standard displacement ?
Seems like it. I'm assuming you're going to ask next why they didn't?
 
if Rhein-Danube -canal is constructed, something up to 1000ton warships (albeit with pontoon lighters and some disassembly for superstructure) could be transported between North Sea and the Black Sea
For inland water travel especially if you are going to traverse a canal with lots of locks, it is actually the external dimensions that limit the craft. For instance the Type 23 Raubvogel Torpedo boot was 87 meters long, with a beam of 8.25, and a draft of 3.65. Not to mention a funnel that peaked some 10 meters above the waterline. This would requiring locks at least a 100 meters long, this far exceeds the lock length of the Ludwig Canal (the Rhine-Danube Canal that was in place in the 1940's).

It would be far easier to just dig out a new dry dock on the shore of the Black Sea; transfer the machinery needed for a shipyard from one of the captured Dutch or French ones; and bring in some experienced labor.
 
For inland water travel especially if you are going to traverse a canal with lots of locks, it is actually the external dimensions that limit the craft. For instance the Type 23 Raubvogel Torpedo boot was 87 meters long, with a beam of 8.25, and a draft of 3.65. Not to mention a funnel that peaked some 10 meters above the waterline. This would requiring locks at least a 100 meters long, this far exceeds the lock length of the Ludwig Canal (the Rhine-Danube Canal that was in place in the 1940's).

It would be far easier to just dig out a new dry dock on the shore of the Black Sea; transfer the machinery needed for a shipyard from one of the captured Dutch or French ones; and bring in some experienced labor.

my speculation is always centered around further development of the MFPs/AFPs as draft hovered around 1.6m. obviously they are not proper torpedo boats but could carry an impressive cargo load and were used in many roles.

they could have been moved to Med or Black Sea and the concrete armor added there? again just IMO, but it seems they could have eclipsed the R-boats which were limited in armament? my speculation may run aground here, but the R-boats employed two MAN diesels of 900hp each, valuable engines they could have used for u-boats and/or enhanced AFPs (if feasible in latter case)

know that during the 1930's smaller u-boats transportable overland (n sections) were schemed and a provision for smaller Elektroboot was that they could be moved similarly.
 
Moored in Scapa Flow with the white ensign flying above German colours?
:openedeyewink:

Well, I mean it is best... just not from a German perspective.
 
For inland water travel especially if you are going to traverse a canal with lots of locks, it is actually the external dimensions that limit the craft. For instance the Type 23 Raubvogel Torpedo boot was 87 meters long, with a beam of 8.25, and a draft of 3.65. Not to mention a funnel that peaked some 10 meters above the waterline. This would requiring locks at least a 100 meters long, this far exceeds the lock length of the Ludwig Canal (the Rhine-Danube Canal that was in place in the 1940's).

It would be far easier to just dig out a new dry dock on the shore of the Black Sea; transfer the machinery needed for a shipyard from one of the captured Dutch or French ones; and bring in some experienced labor.

That's why the Rhine-Danube canal should be dug already in peacetime. Dortmund-Ems canal is 85x9,5x2,5 meters. Establishing a shipyard takes years after which building ship takes time and who knows if France has not been captured? Using lightering pontoons and disassembling superstructure for travel - or even cutting the bow to shorten the ship for assembly again - is much easier.
 
Top